Michael Mann is in the news again for making more outrageous claims, this time of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Quote:

“Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming… As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize…”

A quick call to the Nobel Prize offices will disabuse you of this spectacular falsehood. The claim is made in his legal action against Mark Styne of the National Review mentioned in a previous post. His argument goes something like this.

In 2007 the Nobel Peace prize was jointly awarded to the IPCC and AL Gore “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”. Michael Mann contributed to the IPCC report that lead to them getting the prize, ipso facto Michael Mann was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now let’s see – hmmmm? In 2012 The European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize “for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe”… I live in the Union and I have been part of that reconciliation and stuff – hells bells, I’ve been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize!! I’ll just ring the Nobel Prize Office to check. Oh, I haven’t won the Nobel Peace Prize. How disappointing.

Professor Phil Jones  – keeper of the world’s temperature, darling of the environmental movement, centre of the Climategate scandal, well, he has slipped some interesting figures onto the internet in the last week, very quietly, hoping no one will notice. Yes its official, from the Hadley CRU (via the British Meteorological office) which has been stoking the fires of Global warming hysteria these past few decades – Global Warming has stopped!

For 16 years now the World’s average temperature has remained static at 14.5 deg. C. Now I am not one to be too impressed by an average world temperature as it so happens. I think that an average world temperature is about as useful as an average of the numbers in a telephone book. I am also highly sceptical of the accuracy of the current temperature record. But that aside, for the shock troops of the army of Global Warming alarmism to admit that, even by their own biased figures, the World has not warmed in the last 16 years – hells bells this is some admission.

This disclosure has huge ramifications for people who are making claims about the effect on our environment of Global Warming. If Global Warming is not taking place, what credibility does that give to the research and claims that these individuals and organisations are making?

Now Phil Jones has qualified these inconvenient results. He points out that despite the temperature ‘pause’ that he believes that this decade will end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

Now let’s analyse this particular piece of double speak:

If I was driving a car at 30 miles an hour for one mile, then 50 miles an hour for a second mile and 60 miles an hour for a further half a mile and then told you that if I continue at 60 miles an hour for another half mile that the third mile would be travelled at a significantly higher speed than the previous two miles, would you be surprised? No of course you wouldn’t, in fact you would probably think I was treating you like an idiot for stating the obvious. Well, this is exactly what Jones has done. He has stated the obvious, but he has also been economical with the truth, because he, like the rest of his cadre, have been projecting a linear increase in the average world temperature in line with the (strangely) linear increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. His computer models (call them guesses) are shown to be wrong based on these latest figures.

Why is the north polar ice melting – well clearly it has nothing to do with Global warming.

Why is the south polar sea ice increasing – well nothing to do with Global warming, and so on and so on.  What will it take to put the brakes on this runaway trillion dollar global industry?

For more see here.

By Gordon G. Chang, Forbes

Sea levels have been rising inexorably since the end of the last Ice age about 10,000 years ago. We are currently in an interglacial period which will end in the not too distant future (in geological terms that is). We have also just exited a warm century – the 20^th – in fact it is the only century that has passed since the end of the little ice age (approximately 1300AD to 1850AD) so one would expect it to have been warmer than the 8 cold centuries that preceded it. So far the 21^st century has been slightly cooler than the 20^th– on average – though the sea level fall reported by NASA may only be temporary.

This article makes it clear that this temporary fall is due to short term weather cycles specifically a switch from El Nino to La Nina conditions. But could there be other factors? The Antarctic ice cap is thickening which (unlike the record sea ice levels in Antarctica) means there is less water going into the oceans and is not a temporary effect. Either way we are not looking at beach front property disappearing under the type of sea rises predicted by Al Gore (or any of his alarmist chums) in the near future.

Falling sea levels, record sea ice levels (Antarctic only), falling temperatures, record low levels of hurricanes, flooding – it would appear that the 21^st Century is becoming rather inconvenient for  the global warming industry.

With regard to John Gibbon’s article The Arctic ice cap is melting…’ ‘Irish Times Opinion 27th September 2012 I feel it necessary to take him to task on ‘the truth’ in his submission. He quotes Churchill in respect of ‘the truth’ and then proceeds to be very economical with this most precious and rare commodity. He states ‘the truth’ that on 16th September Arctic sea ice hit its lowest level ever recorded but spares us ‘the truth’ that we are seeing a record sea ice expansion in the Antarctic. Could the record sea ice melt be due to other factors? If John is so wedded to ‘the truth’ then why did he not mention that NASA posted a video on 18th September in which they stated that an Arctic Cyclone on 5th August played a ‘key role’ in record ice melt.

John also states “The last time the Arctic is believed to have been ice-free is during the Eemian period about 125,000 years ago yet the Holocene Climate Optimum 6,000 years ago was 4 degrees C warmer than today. Is it reasonable to hypothesise that the Arctic would have been ice-free under those conditions? Many scientist think so. So John’s statement about the Eemian being the last time the Arctic is believed to have been ice-free is simply his version of ‘the truth’.

John is clearly exhibiting what the Nobel Laureate Ferdinand von Hayek called “Pretence of Knowledge”. John thinks he understands climate, like the economists of 1929 and 2007 thought they understood the world economy, but the contradictions, innumerable variables and sheer size of these complex systems makes humanity’s attempts to understand them, let alone control them, utter hubris.

John is not the first to cry wolf. This quote from ‘The New Scientist’ magazine 1st December 1960 – ‘…warming is evident. …If this goes on the Arctic Ocean will be open year round before the close of the twentieth century’.

And John is wont to quote the scientists who speak his ‘truth’. In relation to the alarmist vision of a 97% surface ice melt in Greenland on 12th July he quotes Son Nghiem of NASA “This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to data error?” If only Nghiem had spoken to his NASA colleague Dr Lora Koenig (a Goddard glaciologist and member of the team analysing the satellite data) his fears would have been allayed, quote, “Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time.” Now John talks in his opening paragraph about spin and obfuscation. His selective quotation is a clear example of spin and obfuscation as these two quotes are from the same NASA article.

When someone begins the defence of their particular position with an appeal to ‘the truth’ beware. John is mistaken in his belief that science, whether climate or otherwise, is about the search for ‘truth’, as every scientist knows, science is the never ending search for error.

Burt Rutan – the man who brought you the first non-stop (no refuelling) round the world flight, the man who brought you the first commercial flight into space (winner of the $10 million X-Prize in 2004) and hopefully, the man who will launch the space tourism industry next year – doesn’t believe in human caused global warming.

As I have said in a previous blog, there is no such thing as a climate expert. This is why we should sit up and take note when a man like Rutan expresses sceptical views. He is nothing to do with the climate scene, but he is a data analyst. Point him at slew of data and he knows better than most how to crunch the numbers and tease out a defendable conclusion of its meaning.

I take heart when people of his intellect turn their attention to this most important of world issues, going to the source of the data and drawing his own conclusions.

Source

In recent months the Dutch parliament has been presented with data showing that the CO2 created in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of wind turbines will not be balanced out by the CO2 savings from the ‘Green’ electricity generated during the life time of a machine.

It has been received wisdom that a wind turbine would be 15 years into its 20 to 25 year life span before it started to have an impact on CO2 reduction. This calculation was based on ‘computer models’. We now have empirical data from a number of energy grids across the world to show that the actual savings are derisory or simply non-existent.  The error in the computer models derives from the fact that savings of carbon fuel used by back-up power generation are not being realised. An extreme example is the Australian state of Victoria which uses lignite (brown coal) for its base load power stations. The power stations do not use any less fuel when they reduce energy production at times of high wind turbine generated electricity. This is because it is more energy efficient to run a lignite station at full power rather than to cycle it up and down. This is true to a lesser degree for other forms of carbon energy including gas.

As I understand it, the sole purpose of wind generated electricity is to reduce the level of industry generated CO2 going into the atmosphere. 20 years of wind farms has shown us that wind turbines cannot generate cheap electricity. Advances in technology have increased known carbon energy reserves many times over and the fear of peak oil/gas is now behind us. If the only reason we have left – low CO2 emissions, has been taken away, then let us consign the wind turbine to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

Source

Another angle